In order to hold to your assertion (a), you have to hold that it DOES make sense to say these things. Is that what you're saying?

No, what I am currently saying is that I will conceed whatever point you are trying to prove - whether that is that I am not intelligent enough to understand female comedians or you are not intelligent enough to discern tongue-and-cheek discussion from serious discussion and answer accordingly i.e. with something other than a treatise.

I know I am not the only one that finds this kind of discussion tiring and ironically, totally devoid of humor.

You win, congrats, please respond only if concise.

I initially answered the supposedly tongue-in-cheek comment about not finding female commedians funny with a one-sentence, equally-tongue-in-cheek retort about some people not having the intelligence to find female comedians funny. So, you see, I am capable of such discernment.

But my tongue-in-cheek retort was answered with a seemingly more serious (and seemingly defensive) claim that "never have" and "never could" were different.

I responded to this by explaining why this difference was irrelevant -- but I also noted, explicitly, that I didn't mean anything serious by any of this, and was only playing along. This was answered by what appeared to be another more serious (though short) defense -- and so long as the defense seemed to be offered with serious intent (with reference to logic, etc.), I took the time to respond to it somewhat thoroughly.

I'm not sure why this makes me the "tiresome" bad guy here.

And I love it how everyone thinks my posts are so long, in need of outlining, and worthy of the label "treatise." If four paragraphs is too long, you're really in for a treat in law school. The average law review article is 80 pages, and have you seen the size of those casebooks?

If a handful of multiparagraph posts over the past day and a half is enough to get me labeled as the tiresome pedant, so be it.

It seems reasonable to point out that while the things people say in a forum such as this may give some insight into their personalities, everyone's multidimensional, and what shows up here is likely to be at best a mere projection of that.

I say this realizing that it's a pretty basic human tendency when meeting strangers in a strange situation to try to exert some kind of control or organization with respect to all the unknowns - thus, stereotyping people as "the old coot," "the pedant," "the frat guy," etc. This lends stability and a bit of certainty to the system, but at considerable cost. While some degree of pigeonholing is probably inevitable, hopefully we can collectively do better than that.

(Note that I'm not really speaking to what's overtly being said, but rather what's going on in people's minds as they participate or observe and draw conclusions.)

Well put.

Another aspect of the board which is helpful is it gives "the old coot", "the pedant", "the frat guy" etc. a chance to interact, when in a traditional classroom setting they may not, and actually get past our stereotypes, whereas once in school we may judge others upon our very limited perception of them, before actually talking to them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think in a way, having the various stereotypes on the board may help us get to know various types of people better that maybe do fall into our stereotypes, however we also realize we may have more in common than we may think. That sounds really cheesy, I know.

It is also true only a small portion of us is manifested by what is said on these boards, but overall I have been more inclined to have a more positive impression of those that have interacted here. I'm sure we have very deriding opinions on many issues, and clashing personalities. However, on this board, much more than others, it seems we've been very amicable despite this.

Now I really am getting cheesy and super analytical I have also done what was dreaded by Margee and gone totally off topic.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think in a way, having the various stereotypes on the board may help us get to know various types of people better that maybe do fall into our stereotypes, however we also realize we may have more in common than we may think. That sounds really cheesy, I know.

if anyone caught "dog bites man" last night, it had a bit on doing the news with someone signing for the hearing impaired, and then finding out later they had form of tourette's which caused them sign vulgarities...then they went off on how they couldn't understand the complaint calls that came in...

To lighten the mood a bit, I am going to say something horribly un-PC, but I don't mean it, I didn't make it up, and if you are on forums a lot, you have probably already heard it.

[Begin statement not to judge me by]

Arguing on the internet is like the Special Olympics, you may win, but you're still retarded.

[End statement not to judge me by]

I think that saying something that you know will be insensitive and potentially offensive, but saying it anyway while trying to get out of being accountable for it (and while thinking it will "lighten the mood"), only makes the act more insensitive and offensive.

FYI, I worked with adults who are mentally and physically disabled for about 8 yrs, and my dad's the director for a collection of group homes in Oregon.

Look: I harbor no hard feelings toward anyone on here, including you. When I debate and argue over a question or an issue, it is purely impersonal and intellectual. It's fun for me, and intellectually stimulating. You don't have to put me down for it, or scorn an entire class of people in the process. If you don't want to engage, then don't. But to engage, even if only briefly, and then put me down for continuing the engagement (while also trying to avoid accountability for the things you say) seems awfully cowardly and small.

You don't have to put me down for it, or scorn an entire class of people in the process. If you don't want to engage, then don't. But to engage, even if only briefly, and then put me down for continuing the engagement (while also trying to avoid accountability for the things you say) seems awfully cowardly and small.

That statement was just as self-deprecating as judgemental since I clearly was as guilty as anyone of arguing stupidly over the internet ... but I suppose you have never laughed at an off-color joke so what was I thinking.

You don't have to put me down for it, or scorn an entire class of people in the process. If you don't want to engage, then don't. But to engage, even if only briefly, and then put me down for continuing the engagement (while also trying to avoid accountability for the things you say) seems awfully cowardly and small.

That statement was just as self-deprecating as judgemental since I clearly was as guilty as anyone of arguing stupidly over the internet ... but I suppose you have never laughed at an off-color joke so what was I thinking.

At least you are predictable.

I suppose "predictable" is meant as a slight against me as well. But if you could "predict" that I might not share in this particular "off-color" humor -- if you could anticipate with confidence that I (or anyone, for that matter) might be offended -- then why would you tell the joke? Calling me "predictable" only digs you deeper into your hole, making you look even more insensitive.

I repeat: I'm actually not offended here. I have no hard feelings. I'm just attempting to call you out on a few of the things you've said. Sorry if you feel I'm picking on you -- and I realize some of the things I've said may have come off as harsh, but I haven't intended any genuine derogation. Seriously -- though it hasn't been funny per se -- this whole back-and-forth has, for me anyway, been all in good fun. Sorry to put you on the defensive.